XBTUSD on his first non-monogamy experiences

XBTUSD has a follow-up post, which will make sense in the context of his earlier post.

TRQ asked about my first experience with non monogamy where I was with a girl who was not my partner.

I started to move into ethical non-monogamy (ENM) by changing the structure of the “dating” phase of relationships. Where I live, everyone assumes everyone is seeing/fucking other people until an explicit define the relationship (DTR) conversation happens. A clock starts running when you know that past a certain point, even though it was not made explicit, if your girl found out you were sleeping with another girl, she’d be angry even if technically she had no right to be (girls don’t readily accept emotional contracts). I started making the implicit contract we all sign (when we start dating people) explicit. I’d tell girls right from the starting point (first date) that I only wanted to be in non-monogamous relationships and that I didn’t want to be in any sort of committed relationship at the current moment. I like to call most relationships with an implicit contract “escalator” relationships: men know that once they start dating a girl the clock starts ticking and the girl will try and move you up the escalator as quickly as possible:

non exclusive → exclusive → meet friends → boyfriend → meet family → move in → marriage → children

Women compete for status by their ability to extract resources from high status men, and therefore it’s socially desirable to compare where they are in the relationship escalator with their friends, and in turn men throughout the years have come up with every possible way to drag their feet and slow this process. Women lose status when they can’t get you to the next step in a socially acceptable amount of time because time is the most precious resource a woman has. In the same way companies have “title” inflation to keep dumb millennials around without paying them more, men have used “title” inflation in a relationship context to keep women around longer by giving them new titles that come with no true concessions and resource investments on our part. Amongst Gen Z “exclusive” but not in a relationship is now a thing?

How can you exit this whole maddening structure? Give women the information, let them take responsibility for their choices. Rather than living in the world of don’t ask don’t tell about the other people we all know we’re seeing, I started being explicit about exactly what women could expect from me, and it was life changing. In many ways, I wasn’t doing anything that different than anyone else does when dating where I live, I was just being candid about it.

The first true extra partner experience I had once I was in a committed non monogamous relationship was actually initiated by my girlfriend (we can call her Sarah). Sarah had the highest sex drive of anyone I had ever been with, and was very sexually open. We had talked about having a threesome with a girl but she had said she wasn’t attracted to girls. She was a big drinker, and generally (like most people) became much wilder when she was drinking. One night I was at a big outdoor EDM show, rolling (MDMA) with a big crew of people and her and one of my female friends (Corey) just started making out. Corey was married to another friend of mine (Andrew). Andrew and I chatted and agreed we were both down to have a foursome. We went back to our place and had the standard hetero foursome where everyone fucks but the two dudes don’t touch each other at all. Andrew was cool with it but was slightly nervous so a lot of it was Corey and Sarah hooking up and us watching. I felt no fear/disgust/nervousness but rather was super turned on by the whole thing. I think a big part of it was that I knew everyone so well. It was hard to imagine feeling threatened by the interaction. A week later we all got together and debriefed and everyone agreed they had a great time. No latent jealousy, misunderstandings etc. Continue reading “XBTUSD on his first non-monogamy experiences”

What does “quality girl” mean?

Online, there is endless discussion of how to seek out and identify “quality” girls, whatever that means… “quality” in a girl is tricky, since most girls, like men, have some good and some bad points. A lot of guys who think they want “quality,” who say they want “quality,” really want to convert a hot sexually adventurous slut into a housewife (rarely works well, but give it a go if you like… please don’t come whining to the Internet if it doesn’t). If you go for girls who are -1 or -2 relative to you in sexual market value (SMV), you can probably get a girl who will invest heavy in you… if she’s not that hot, though, you won’t want her. A lot of guys “want” a girl who is hot, a sex fiend (for him and him alone), absurdly loyal (perhaps not demanding fidelity in return), mentally stable, has even-keeled personality, and perhaps has other desirable traits too. Girls who combine all those qualities are not that common, and they tend to have a lot of suitors to choose from. This is the male equivalent of women who want a guy who is over six feet tall, makes a lot of $$$, has good social skills, prioritizes her and her attention needs, etc. etc. These guys too exist, but in small numbers, and they tend to have lots of options, which they often like to exercise, vigorously and horizontally.

Sometimes vertically, too, for the sake of variety.

A lot of girls aren’t honest about what they really want… superficially they say they want a “relationship” (with a top guy, which is unstated), but in reality their behaviors indicate they want to get f**ked a lot (by a hot guy, or when they’re horny). “I got drunk and it just ‘happened'” is not the statement of a girl who really wants a relationship. Thing is… a lot of guys aren’t honest either. A lot of guys aren’t truly working to improve themselves, and their results are consistent with that. I tweeted a while ago, “most guys don’t really care that much about getting laid.” If they do, you’ll see them quit video games, prioritize the gym, eat no sugar, and do the other things common to guys who get laid, as opposed to guys who don’t, or guys who say they want to but don’t align their behavior with that stated want. Continue reading “What does “quality girl” mean?”

“Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills

I’ve said this in some different places but not headlined with it: “Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills overlap, but there’s a lot of non-overlap too. For picking up chicks, approach anxiety, initial comments, flirting skills, sheer physicality, fashion sense, logistics, dealing with shit tests, etc. are paramount. Guys should practice and build up those skills. For long-term relationships, emotional compatibility, lifestyle, money/money philosophy, ability to maintain sexual heat, long-term life goals, etc. are much more important. Guys can be good at both but there’s a lot of distinction between the two and if you specialize in being a player you will likely hone the early skills and forget the later ones even exist.

If you are a young guy without a lot of experience with women you should concentrate pretty much entirely on short and medium term relationship skills. If you are an older guy you will have to evaluate your life course for yourself and think about what you seek over time.

Guys who are truly specialized in short term relationships may lose the idea that in the medium or long term, some of the “game” aspects go away… or change. Yes, women will still shit test over the long term, but sometimes the issues are real issues and not shit tests. Real issues that need to be addressed. Sometimes they are comfort tests, a topic that doesn’t come up much because I think most guys don’t get to that stage. Emotionally healthy and secure chicks will have needs that they will bring up, and consistently not meeting those needs will cause the woman to look elsewhere… if she is damaged she may become more attracted to adrenaline, drama, and not having those needs met.

I have made this mistake before.

Continue reading ““Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills”

“The mom having an affair because her husband did first”

The Brooklyn Mom Having an Affair Because Her Husband Had One First. This piece illustrates the dangers of affairs and non-monogamy. I see guys online suggesting that it’s okay for a guy to have a quiet side piece while his main woman cares for the kids and runs the house.

That is of course possible. For a few guys, feasible. For most guys, not much…. requires too much money, time, dedication, etc. Too easy to get caught today.

If you do it, she will likely want to do it too. And when she does it, this can lead to alienation of affection as well as paternity uncertainty. If the guy in this story thinks the next kid in his, well, he might be wrong.

Continue reading ““The mom having an affair because her husband did first””

Tough conversations. Downside of being known as a player

Tough conversations this weekend. I’m having some challenges making some of the changes I want to make, and I am suffering some right now because I have been a player for a long time and have a player reputation and a lot of player instincts. The player instincts don’t serve me well in trying to develop a longer-term relationship with a woman who has a more secure attachment style and who knows what she wants.

A word on reputation and what chicks are looking for. Players tend to filter out family-oriented chicks. TD Daygame has been talking about this on Twitter, although I don’t think he has a blog anymore, so I can’t link a canonical post on the subject. But chicks who want monogamy and families do exist…. they are the ones who are not intersted in guys who give off player vibes. Some of them are also very pretty. You can tell who they are because they usually have a small number of lifetime sex partners, usually don’t have sex immediately, and typically find guys who are attractive, have their shit together, and are career-oriented. Extremely sexually adventurous chicks make for interesting and fun stories… extremely family-oriented chicks don’t, usually. I am thinking of two chicks in particular I know who were (and are) very pretty and followed this pattern. Often they will compromise somewhat on looks and extroversion to get family-oriented and monogamous. They often find long-term guys in their 20s and often work jobs that give them access to guys with good earnings and family orientation.

Obviously there are many family-oriented, mostly monogamous chicks who will have one or two flings in their lives… if you catch them at the right time with the right game you may get with one of them. But for the most part these chicks keep their wilder impulses under control and filter guys for being better dads and providers. If a woman is looking for this she is not going to like players or guys who signal player. This is the kind of woman who, if you cold approach her, will say “no” and move on. She’s probably never been on Tinder or, if she has, she quit it in disgust. She’s not doing the things all the Red Pill guys complain about in sexually active women, but she’s also looking for a guy commensurate to her in value, so low value guys are going to be just about sexually invisible to her. I think a lot of online Red Pill guys are low value and thrashing about women because it’s almost impossible to overcome being low value, kind of like fat chicks complaining about men. For fat chicks, their number one problem in accessing higher-value men is being fat, and pretty much nothing they do without changing their diets and movement habits will improve their situation.

Reputation matters and chicks are going to judge you on, like you judge them on it (if you know them). Continue reading “Tough conversations. Downside of being known as a player”

“It is not your job to match your boyfriend’s libido.” Yes, it is.

At least the guy in “It is not your job to match your boyfriend’s libido” was not stupid enough to marry this woman, because his relationship with her is likely OVER. Unfortunately, the woman dispensing advice to another woman is just reinforcing the bullshit view that it’s a great idea for a woman to repeatedly refuse her man sex… which is going to lead to the end of the relationship.

Soon, she likely to be doing 100% of the housework, because the man is going to leave (if he has any balls… maybe he doesn’t).

A man, however, is only as good as his other options, and this mainstream press piece reminds us that in today’s world we must always have and be cultivating other options. You cannot give up. There is no coasting. It may hurt to imagine that, but it’s true.

If the genders had been reversed, it would of course be the man’s responsibility to match the woman’s libido, and, if he cannot, it would be her right to seek satisfaction elsewhere.

To give the woman her due, it’s reasonable not to want to be routinely woken up for sex in the middle of the night if you’re not into that kind of thing… but a reasonable woman would also say, “Instead, I want to have sex in these times and ways, and I’m making it work for both of us.”

The more game I’ve needed the worse the relationship has been

I was reading “Honest observations after eight years in the game” and got to thinking: the more game I’ve needed to get a particular girl, or the more I’ve had to run game on her, the worse the relationship has been. The ones who are bitchy, constantly testing, and most difficult can be good in bed but the relationships themselves are never the best. Those women are only good as friends with benefits, and even then the “friends” part stretches the definition of the word.

The ones who just wanted me and the sex and let everything lead into that have been the most pleasant to deal with and over time the best in bed. Over time this has become my own test: How much game did I need to get this woman? The more game, the more likely I am to jettison her or keep her in a distant rotation.

It’s amazing to me that many women think playing hard to get and being unpleasant to be around is somehow a way to get and keep a man. That’s a good way to get some casual sex and a terrible way to get a relationship. Over time, the guys who persist most will be the ones with no other options. Guys with options will find a woman who’s more pleasant to be around, and pleasant to be around starts with the very first interaction.

Bike Girl was pleasant when I met her, pleasant in texting, pleasant on the first date, and has been pleasant since. So was the gorgeous 19-year-old I met a couple years ago and dated for almost two. Most of the relationships I’ve ended prematurely ended because the girl was the opposite. The more “game,” I’ve needed, the more I realized (usually sooner) that the girl couldn’t and shouldn’t be anything more than an FWB. The more I’ve felt “tested,” the more I’ve known the girl is no good or no good for me. Next!

No wonder relationships in the U.S. are fucked.

This isn’t an “actionable” post and doesn’t matter much for guys who want to hit ‘n’ run. But guys who are still being chosen, rather than the choosers, should know that your whole world changes when you do more choosing. You learn a lot quickly.